EVIDENTIARY PROBLEMS IN ACID ATTACK CASES: MEDICAL EVIDENCE VS. WITNESS TESTIMONY

Acid attack cases present complex evidentiary issues, especially when medical testimony is at variance with eyewitness account. According to the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, which prescribes admissibility and assessment of evidence in India, the courts are confronted with a crucial question: whether they should give emphasis to scientific objectivity through expert medical opinion or uphold the traditional bias towards direct ocular testimony. This paper discusses three central concerns. First, it examines whether the courts must take a "science-over-sentiment" stance when there are contradictions, considering that BSA rules on expert evidence place high importance on reliability but refrain from awarding it absolute priority. Second, it examines whether a conviction in acid attack cases may be based exclusively on medical evidence in the absence of corroborative eyewitness evidence, and whether this harms the established principle that direct evidence tends to win the day unless it is inherently unreliable. Third, it assesses the application of the 'best evidence' principle under the BSA where both medical and testimonial proof is imperfect, delayed or partial medical reports on one hand, and inconsistency or hostility in witnesses' accounts due to trauma on the other. Applying doctrinal analysis, judicial precedents, and comparative insights from common law jurisdictions, the research attempts to ascertain whether the BSA properly deals with such conflicts or needs interpretive certainty and reform of procedure. The conclusions are intended to supply a framework for balancing scientific rigor and the human aspect of justice in acid attack prosecutions under the new regime of evidence. Keywords: Acid Attack, Medical Evidence, Eyewitness Testimony, Best Evidence Rule, Expert Opinion